Have humans stopped evolving?
Charles Darwin said the environment shapes us. And now we know the shaping happens via crosstalk with our genes. Genes respond to the environment, which ‘naturally selects’ the versions of the genes that work best in that environment, which in turn affects the genes, on and on across the generations.
So, have humans stopped evolving?
For a long time, the answer from most evolutionary biologists has been ‘yes.’ We all evolved in the same place, in the same environment, and in the last 50,000 years, natural selection has, as the renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould put it, ‘become irrelevant’ for humans. Human innovation has excluded the environment as a driving force in our own evolution.
But what if the answer is actually no? The implications are big. And what if the answer is not only ‘no,’ but also ‘we’re evolving faster than ever, so fast that groups of humans, races if you will, are evolving away from each other.’ The implications are bigger.
What factors, after all, most dramatically affect, actually constitute the human environment? Our culture, our religion, and even our economy! What if, as suggested by futurist Paul Saffro, humans wealthy enough to select their own environment and their own genes and body parts (which, by the way, they can already do) might evolve into a separate superspecies? All this culture and ethics is scary territory for most biologists. And for good reason.
So, it’s probably more than just science that helps maintain the evolutionary biologists’ party line that ‘humans are all the same’ and ‘we’ve stopped evolving.’ After all, talk of differences evolving in different human groups evokes lurking dangers of eugenics: the twisted logic of racism, Nazism, The Bell Curve. In fact, according to very convincing evidence outlined in the recent Darwin’s Sacred Cause, his disgust for slavery was perhaps the driving force behind Darwin’s efforts to demonstrate evolution, with its underlying truth that humans are all one species with a common ancestor.
While in no way disputing that we all share a common ancestor in Africa, a group of scientists are saying, first, that we all agree that after our initial start in Africa (about 50,000 years ago), we all spread out around the world into very different environments, and second, that those different environments account not only for why we look different, but the different environments and separation from other groups also account for our different cultures and religions (i.e., new environments). New environments make for selection of different genes. This much no one argues with.
Different Cultures, Different Genes
But now, backed by new data, scientists ask controversial questions like this: could forcing Jews by law to do little but handle money for many, many generations in Europe have selected for the relatively common independent appearance of Tay-Sachs disease in that population? Geneticists have shown, most famously with sickle-cell disease and its co-occurrence of resistance to malaria, when a mutation occurs independently over evolutionary time in different populations, this usually means the mutation gives some advantage to organisms in a particular environment.
Tay-Sachs is a deadly disease if you have two mutant copies of the gene, but why would different versions of the mutant gene keep occurring independently in the same group, especially if it’s deadly when you get a mutant copy from both parents? Two of the scientists involved in this new humans-are-evolving-real-fast research (Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran) hypothesize with strong, testable data that perhaps the mutant version of the gene allows brain neurons to grow in new ways that improve analytical ability, allowing the capacity for better math and money handling skills. Such ability would of course be selected for in centuries’-worth of banking environments.
See why this gets folks edgy? A human-created environment (culture) that affects one cultural/religous group (Jews) that might drive genetic change over a relatively short period of time.
Harpending, Cochran and others identify many such ‘recent’ genetic and phenotypic differences (aren’t black people, Asians, and Caucasians obviously different in physiology?). They claim, based on analysis of the enormous emerging databases of the genomic revolution, that human evolution is actually going faster, up to a hundred times faster, than before humans left Africa.
Why faster? Well, the scientists reason, not only have we dramatically changed environments from Africa to all corners of Earth, but there’s also vastly more of us, vastly more organisms on which evolution can work. Ten thousand years ago Earth hosted 10 million people; now it holds almost seven billion. So, the odds of any particular mutation occurring by chance is much greater. Once it pops up, if it gives an advantage, the mutation quickly moves through that one population.
Recent genetic analysis has determined that as much as 7% of our genome has evolved rapidly like this in the times since the great split up of humans from Africa 40-50,000 years ago. Dozens of such genes are hypothesized to be, like the Tay-Sachs gene, related to brain development.
Like I said, this stuff—the idea that different cultures have different versions of genes—is potentially disturbing, and likely accounts for some of the continued resistance to these claims from many quarters, including scientists. As important, many prominent scientists are also wary of the methods used in this relatively new field of genome evolution analysis, as well as the broad conclusions, like that of the Tay-Sachs hypothesis, which have not yet been experimentally demonstrated.
Personally, my bet is with the new data and interpretations. The intriguing part will be to see how these new data and ideas get integrated into our culture.
Tags: evolution, futurism, gene, genetics, human, religion, science, species
There are now vastly more humans, but they are more mixed. A short time ago, for example 100 years, there were tribes that had virtually no contact with the outside world. In centuries before that, you had limited contact between continents. Human populations could continue in relative isolation, but no more. The speeded up evolution of so many people is spread across the entire global population. Perhaps some day the rich might develop a plan to isolate themselves and artificially evolve, but not now. We have rapid evolution, but currently no way to separate into multiple species, until we build starships and start spreading across the galaxy.
Here is another thing to consider. If you have children and they have children, 1000 years from now everyone on earth might be your descendent, and everyone else alive today that leaves children will also be an ancestor to every one of those earthlings of that next millenium. If you go back a thousand years that was not true because of isolation, but there is no more isolation. Do the math.
There is more information stored in a human mind than in the human genetic code. Perhaps humans have entered a second phase of evolution where what they can think of is far more important in determining the future than how their bodies can change. We might now also be entering a third phase of our evolution where what the mind can do takes a back seat to what the collective of billions of minds and billions of computers on the internet can do. Those computers continue to double in power, and we continue to turn control of this entire enterprise over to the software even though we don't have much idea of what that will mean in the long run. It is hard to predict where we will be a hundred years from now, and 1000 is totally out of the question.
Software evolves, and can split into multiple species. Computers can only double in speed and memory, but software can double in intelligence. It might be growing at a rate that humans can't measure or even see. If we could measure it, we might find software growing at something like a multi-dimensional Moore's Law. Wherever we are headed in the next thousand years, it will be computer software that takes us there.
I wonder how this fits in with the cognitive science of religion's claim about religion as an evolutionary byproduct?
When our human ancestors came down out of the trees, they picked up pointy sticks to protect themselves from the lions. The sticks were a good solution to the problem as long as they worked together as a group. After a few million years, the groupthink evolved into religion.
"... evolutionary biologists’ party line that ‘humans are all the same’ and ‘we’ve stopped evolving.’"
It isn't just a party line that we are all the same- the human population, large as it is, has far less variation than the much smaller population of, say, chimpanzees. There are just a lot of copies of us. So all this silliness about "forming new species" is way, way premature, especially with the re-mixing going on with today's globalization.
On the other hand, the idea that we've stopped evolving is false. Any change in relative population frequencies constitutes evolution. The famous spread of Genghis Khan's genes through Central Asia- that's evolution! Immigration and higher birthrates? That's evolution. Does communal worship of imaginary beneficent deities (that perhaps promote polygamy) promote reproduction? That is evolution too.
The examples in the article are likewise relevant. We are changing all the time, and range-edges, like Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas, are prime areas for new environments to select for different traits than our African ancestors possessed, as has clearly happened quite rapidly, just over the last 150,000 years. All this really isn't in dispute- the issue is only whether we create political / ideological consequences to human variation, and whether we have any acceptable criteria for guiding evolution in the future, if we wish to. ... probably not, other than ridding ourselves of the very worst genetic diseases and the like.
Humans understand how to rapidly and effectively drive evolutionary change, and we have long been doing it in domestic plants and animals. Prime examples are breeds of dog and different species of commercial fruit. We are also making selections in our own population, although to a poorly organized degree and perhaps in a haphazard way. Humans make selections and drive evolutionary change in the opposite sex. Males are selecting females for being more attractive, and females are selecting males for being dominate over other males.
Burk said " .... the human population, large as it is, has far less variation than the much smaller population of, say, chimpanzees. "
This comes from looking at mitochondrial DNA, which is a poor indicator since it is a single locus. More recent scans of the nuclear genome show we are in fact more diverse than chimps by a good amount. On the other we are less diverse than orangutans....go figger.
Henry Harpending
Humans share 95% of their DNA with chimps. Humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas. I don't think a banana is half-human, but it does make it possible for humans and chimpanzees to both eat bananas and digest them. Genetic similarities between humans, animals, and vegetation allow us to have a food chain. Humans also share 85% of their DNA with mice. If you compare humans with mice, bananas, and chimpanzees, I would guess just by looking at them that humans and chimps should have the most similar DNA.
Simple, scientific naturalism. The philosophical worldview held by the majority of scientists. There is a difference between real science and scientific naturalism.
New user?
Sign up and stay connected.
Already have an account?
Login now to access your account.